Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1plv3L-0008GL-7l for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:11:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1plv3K-0002aL-5k for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:11:38 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1plv3J-0002aA-Tr for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:11:37 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1plv3H-0024I7-B5 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:11:37 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 33AHBVJh4181773; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:11:32 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Daniel Gustafsson cc: eugeny@zhuzhnev.com, pgsql-bugs , Peter Eisentraut Subject: Re: BUG #17866: behavior does not match documentation In-reply-to: <3605E583-D445-42E8-8AA6-A9E6136EA0E1@yesql.se> References: <17866-18eb70095b1594e2@postgresql.org> <1944674.1679596295@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2053300.1679608490@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3605E583-D445-42E8-8AA6-A9E6136EA0E1@yesql.se> Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Gustafsson message dated "Thu, 23 Mar 2023 23:00:24 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4181770.1681146691.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:11:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4181771.1681146691@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Daniel Gustafsson writes: > On 23 Mar 2023, at 22:54, Tom Lane wrote: >> It's more readable for sure, and it duplicates what you got in pre-v14 >> versions, at least textually. I'm not sure I'd propose back-patching >> this, but it feels like a good idea for HEAD. > Agreed, I don't think this is material for backpatching. Since we didn't get anything done about that for v16, I concluded that adjusting the docs is a better idea. If anyone takes this idea up in v17 or beyond, they can always revert fbbd7edca at that time. regards, tom lane